Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
This figure has to be at least 5% higher today.[/quote]Because of your made up facts? You have absolutely no evidence of that. Nobody has been forced into Medicaid plans unless they wanted subsidies. If you have newer data, please share it. Your observations that you see lots of Mexicans crossing the border isn’t really evidence.
Participant[quote=ucodegen] This whole ACA is kind of OT to the original thread; but adding a point here that should be considered, particularly due to your ‘links’ reference. When you make participation in the ACA mandatory to the point that fines are as significant as they are, it is not really valid to count the number of people who have signed up or are now on insurance as a validation of the success of the ACA. It might really be the success of the fine and NOT the ACA. (This stick might be more successful than the meager carrot here). Now anecdotally here; I have paid out more, just for mandated coverage in one year, than I paid out over the entire year when I was very sick and turning jaundiced (and I footed that entire bill myself).
What I have noticed, though not so anecdotally, is that a greater amount of the cost is now administrative. Some doctors have avoided doing insurance covered work because they don’t want the costs, but now with the ACA being mandatory, there really is no choice. They may feel that forgoing the entire business might be a better choice for them.
[/quote]
I’m not sure who you think used the number of people signed up as a measurement of success of the ACA in this thread. Certainly not me. I used the number of people (children specifically) on private insurance to counter the bullshit claim that most children are on government insurance.
But nonetheless, the number of people who signed up for insurance, whether through a federal or state exchange is a precise measurement of the success of the ACA. It’s primary goal was to get people insured. It worked. A higher percentage of the population is insured now than at any other time. Arguing that it’s the fine is just stupid. The fine IS an integral part of the ACA.
Administrative costs are not higher now. As a matter of law, they’re capped. As part of the law. If you’re referring to providers administrative costs going up, there is no evidence to support the claim. Most providers have been dealing almost exclusively with insurance, whether private or government, for decades. There was virtually no change with this as a result of the ACA. EMR’s changed. And every medical provider has had to adapt to the modern world. That’s not administrative. That’s actual provision of service. I’d prefer to keep doctors practicing modern medicine rather that medicine of the 1950’s.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]BTW: Name calling is known as a logic fallacy (argumentum ad hominem). [/quote]
Please review your logical fallacies. This wasn’t one. What I did was a straight out insult. There was no logical fallacy involved. Some insults are ad hominem. Some are not. Mine wasn’t. Her lousy opinions stand on their own. They don’t need personal insults to support them. The personal insults were just an extra bonus.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]You don’t have to be insulting, SK. I didn’t see you post any links here to your “anecdotal `evidence.'”[/quote]
It wasn’t anecdotal. If it was anecdotal, I’d be you. I’m not. As of the latest year available, 41% of children 0-18 were on Medicaid and other public insurance. More than 50% are covered by private insurance.
You’re right. I don’t have to be insulting. And you don’t have to be a bigoted racist. So it goes.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]”We, the People” are now burdened with a healthcare industry which is a burgeoning behemoth of layers upon layers of additional bureaucracy with LESS providers to choose from than before the ACA! [/quote]
I’m pretty sure you mean “fewer” not less. Any evidence to support this claim? Or is it more of your spewed out of your ass bullshit?[/quote]
Nevermind. I found the answer myself. It’s more made up bullshit. The US has been adding over 12,000 net additional doctors each year in recent years.[/quote]Please tell some of them to move to SD. I’m going to have to search for a replacement doctor by mid-August. The ones who were referred to me by my doctor who closed their office don’t accept my plan … and I have a marketplace “PPO.” The only other marketplace PPO in Region 19 (SD) is UHP, who just came in on 1/1/16 and has already announced they will be leaving by the end of 2016 because offering plans to “we the people” in CA is not “financially feasible” for them.[/quote]
Yes. Your life sucks because you’re you. It isn’t hard to imagine why doctors would run from you as fast as they can. But the rest of the world isn’t like you. And their experiences aren’t like yours.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Why do Peds get paid so much? Most kids in the US are on Medicaid/Medi-Cal (even if their parents have private insurance).
Is it because so many Peds have retired??[/quote]
Yay! another bg made up fact!!
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]”We, the People” are now burdened with a healthcare industry which is a burgeoning behemoth of layers upon layers of additional bureaucracy with LESS providers to choose from than before the ACA! [/quote]
I’m pretty sure you mean “fewer” not less. Any evidence to support this claim? Or is it more of your spewed out of your ass bullshit?[/quote]
Nevermind. I found the answer myself. It’s more made up bullshit. The US has been adding over 12,000 net additional doctors each year in recent years.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]”We, the People” are now burdened with a healthcare industry which is a burgeoning behemoth of layers upon layers of additional bureaucracy with LESS providers to choose from than before the ACA! [/quote]
I’m pretty sure you mean “fewer” not less. Any evidence to support this claim? Or is it more of your spewed out of your ass bullshit?
ParticipantNo. I didn’t forget to mention it. It isn’t the least bit pertinent to anything I was discussing.
Participant[quote=bobby]big cities? source?
maybe in the boonies to attract young docs but big cities? hard to believe.[/quote]Source is offers my daughter’s co-workers have received, 2 in the bay area, 2 in LA, 1 in San Diego and 1 in Phoenix. All pediatricians finishing their residency.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=SK in CV]Not really. At least in big cities, new docs are commonly getting $100K sign on bonuses. Internal med and Peds starting at $175K plus. It can be a lot of debt, and takes a long time, but if those kind of salaries suck, I’d like to know what professions are getting good starting salaries.[/quote]
Not everywhere.
If your making 135k with 300k debt and working a,lot, it’s no bueno[/quote]
$135K is a very low salary for almost all specialties. $300K of debt is much more than most leave school with. And there are some relatively simple paths for some pretty simple debt relief.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]Not really. At least in big cities, new docs are commonly getting $100K sign on bonuses. Internal med and Peds starting at $175K plus. It can be a lot of debt, and takes a long time, but if those kind of salaries suck, I’d like to know what professions are getting good starting salaries.[/quote]
My point isn’t that the current salaries are bad. They’re reasonable compared to debt. The issue would be most general physician salaries are much lower in the rest of the world. Depending on the country it could be 30 to 50% lower. If our goal is to reform the medical system to something more like the rest of the world (many of you advocate for this), then there’s a significant risk that your salary will be lower than the current salaries.
If we’re trying to control medical costs it’s hard to imagine workers in the medical fields will be better off. Maybe if the government wipes out the debt and indirectly lowers salaries you might be about the same as before. It’s hard to say what the impact would be of a single payer control cost system if we ever get there.[/quote]
It’s not hard to imagine workers in medical fields being similarly situated to where they are now, even if medical costs are controlled. The big part of our costs aren’t going to providers. Providers don’t get $600 for bandaids. Providers don’t get $45 for a Cialis tablet. Providers don’t earn millions of dollars as hospital administrators. Providers don’t earn the 15 to 20% of medical insurance premiums that goes to pay insurance company overhead.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Being in MD is a worthy career. There are some risks though.. Particularly with universal care. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/how-much-are-junior-doctors-paid-and-why-are-they-threatening-to/%5B/quote%5D
That’s the UK. Nobody has suggested a UK type system here. Medicare for all (which has been suggested) would still have all private doctors. Doctors whined like crazy 52 years ago when medicare started. They thought it would be the end of their income. It was just the opposite. That’s when doctors made it to the 1%.
ParticipantNot really. At least in big cities, new docs are commonly getting $100K sign on bonuses. Internal med and Peds starting at $175K plus. It can be a lot of debt, and takes a long time, but if those kind of salaries suck, I’d like to know what professions are getting good starting salaries.
-
AuthorPosts
